Vikas Kujur v. State Of Chhattisgarh
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.CR.C. No. 2801 of 2018 Vikas Kujur, S/o. Tyafil Kujur, Aged About 27 Years, Caste Uranv, R/o. Dipatoli, Tehsil Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : S.H.O., P. S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent M.CR.C. No. 2803 of 2018 Vikas Kujur, S/o. Tyafil Kujur, Aged About 27 Years, Caste Uranv, R/o. Dipatoli, Tehsil Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : S.H.O., P. S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent M.CR.C. No. 2821 of 2018 Vikas Kujur, S/o. Tyafil Kujur, Aged About 27 Years, Caste Uranv, R/o. Dipatoli, Tehsil Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : S.H.O., P. S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent M.CR.C. No. 2825 of 2018 Vikas Kujur, S/o. Tyafil Kujur, Aged About 27 Years, Caste Uranv, R/o. Dipatoli, Tehsil Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : S.H.O., P. S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent M.CR.C. No. 2829 of 2018 Vikas Kujur, S/o. Tyafil Kujur, Aged About 27 Years, Caste Uranv, R/o. Dipatoli, Tehsil Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : S.H.O., P. S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent M.CR.C. No. 2832 of 2018 Vikas Kujur, S/o. Tyafil Kujur, Aged About 27 Years, Caste Uranv, R/o. Dipatoli, Tehsil Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : S.H.O., P. S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent AND M.CR.C. No. 2835 of 2018 Vikas Kujur, S/o. Tyafil Kujur, Aged About 27 Years, Caste Uranv, R/o. Dipatoli, Tehsil Duldula, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Applicant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, Through : S.H.O., P. S. Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent For Applicant :
Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondent :
Mr. Ashok Swarnakar, Panel Lawyer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order On Board 02/08/2018 1.
All the above bail applications are heard and decided together by this common order as they are filed by the same applicant arising out of the similar type of offences.
2.
These are the first bail applications filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the applicant who has been arrested by police of Police Station -Kunkuri, District - Jashpur (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 457, 380, 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the following crime numbers :-
S.No.
Case Number Crime No.
1.
M.Cr.C. No.2801/2018 155/2017 2.
M.Cr.C. No.2803/2018 125/2017 3.
M.Cr.C. No.2821/2018 212/2016 4.
M.Cr.C. No.2825/2018 167/2017 5.
M.Cr.C. No.2829/2018 46/2017 6.
M.Cr.C. No.2832/2018 79/2017 7.
M.Cr.C. No.2835/2018 64/2017 3.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is in jail since 31.12.2017. No case is made out against him according to the material present on record. Charge-sheet has been filed and the case is pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class. It is further submitted that similarly placed co-accused persons have also been released on bail in all the cases. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant may also be enlarged on regular bail.
4.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail application and the submission made in this respect. It is submitted that the applicant appears to be habitual offender, hence, he is not entitled for grant of bail.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record.
6.
The case against the applicant in all the cases is this that he along with other co-accused person has committed theft in the houses of the complainants in all the cases, in which jewelery of gold and silver and cash were stolen from the houses of the complainants. Some articles have been seized from the possession of the applicant, which has been identified by the respective complainants as stolen property.
Hence, this case.
7.
Considered the submissions made and the contents of the case diary. Considering on the entire material present in the case diary as it appears that the applicant is in jail since about 7 months and the trial in all the cases against him are still pending and also for the reason that similarly placed co-accused persons have been granted regular bail, hence for these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case, in which, the applicant should be enlarged on regular bail. 8.
Accordingly, the bail applications filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are allowed.
9.
It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in each cases in the like sum to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court, for his appearance as and when directed. Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) Judge Balram